Written by

Detroit Free Press Editorial Board

Take actionMichigan has three opportunities to eradicate its constitutional ban on gay marriage — two with good ways for ordinary citizens to get involved. ■ The first shot at overturning the ban may come in US. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman’s courtroom, where a gay couple is challenging the prohibition on their adoption of a child, which is a discriminatory byproduct of the ban on gay marriage. Friedman said this spring that his ruling hinges on whether he can consider the gay marriage ban constitutional, and then said he’d wait to see how the U.S. Supreme Court resolved its gay marriage cases before deciding. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinions last week were strong statements against any provisions that single out gay couples for different treatment under the law, simply because they’re gay. That gives Friedman a strong foundation from which to strike down Michigan’s gay marriage ban. He has promised to act as soon as possible. ■ The second chance could arise from the Legislature, where Democrats have introduced bills to repeal the gay marriage ban. They’re the longest of long shots. Because voters amended the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, the Legislature can change that only with the support of 75% of the members in both chambers. But polls show a majority of Michiganders now support gay marriage; if you’re one of them, now’s the time to call your state representative and senator to make that clear. ■ The third opportunity to overturn Michigan’s gay marriage ban could come at the ballot box. Several groups, led by Equality Michigan, are beginning to organize and raise money for a statewide referendum (likely in 2016) to legalize marriage equality. Now’s the time to get involved. Michigan Equality’s website is: www.equalitymi.org.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

Groups that limit membership on account of race, gender or other exterior characteristics inevitably pay a price for their exclusionary ways, even when the law sanctions their discrimination. Nations that close their borders to immigrants, businesses that promote exclusively from within and universities that discourage applicants from out of state are all at a competitive disadvantage to rivals who draw from bigger and more diverse talent pools.

So it has always been our conviction that discriminatory laws, and especially the Michigan statutes that forbid same-sex couples from marrying, adopting children or sharing employment benefits enjoyed by their heterosexual peers, pose a direct threat to our state’s economic aspirations. In sanctioning discrimination on account of sexual orientation, Michigan sends a noxious message, not just to gay citizens, but also to a new generation of college-educated heterosexuals that finds exclusionary policies regressive and morally repugnant.

But if indulging the disparate treatment of gay citizens has always been a bad idea for a state struggling to attract and retain young talent, it became even more hazardous last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court took a giant step toward eradicating laws that relegate gay Americans to second-class citizenship.

In the short run, the court’s 5-4 rulings in U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry will do nothing to alter the legal status of Michigan’s gay citizens. It is still illegal for same-sex couples to marry or adopt children in this state, and although the federal government is now obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 13 states that have formally authorized them, Michigan officials are under no such obligation.

Still, one needn’t be a rocket scientist to guess the trajectory of future jurisprudence in this realm. Barring an unlikely change in the high court’s starting lineup, we can anticipate that the five justices who agreed to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act will compel states eventually to recognize all marriages performed elsewhere, and ultimately to permit such unions within their own borders.

(Page 2 of 2)

So the policy options for states that continue to bar same-sex marriage are increasingly circumscribed. They can proactively repeal state laws that discriminate against gay citizens, or they can wait passively for the day when justices consign those laws to the same graveyard where Dred Scott, Jim Crow and other legal artifacts of pre-civil rights America were long ago interred.

We have little reason to hope that the Legislature, under its current Republican leaders, will be proactive about same-sex marriage. Yet there is a strong case to be made that perpetuating the hostility codified in Michigan’s 9-year-old ban could slow or even derail the economic recovery that GOP legislators insist is their highest priority.

For starters, let’s examine the 13 states in which legislators and/or voters have already authorized same-sex couples to marry.

Nine of those states show up among the top 15 when states are ranked by per capita income; 12 of the 13 are in the top half.

Ten states that sanction same-sex marriage rank among the 15 states boasting the highest proportion of college graduates. The same states outperform their prohibitionist peers in numerous other measures of prosperity and educational achievement, including median household income.

The important observation to be made here is not that gay people tend to be more prosperous or better educated than their fellow citizens, but that prosperity, high educational attainment and inclusivity are complementary phenomena that tend to move in concert with one another. States, industries and companies that work hard to lower barriers to talent have a leg up on those who put their energy into the erection of such barriers. And even talented people who face no discriminatory obstacles themselves take pride in living and working in places where talented people are welcomed and rewarded on their merits.

Gov. Rick Snyder has said repeatedly that his efforts to make Michigan a Top 10 state hinge on attracting and retaining educated millennials. But hard demographic data demonstrate conclusively that young people continue to flee our state for others perceived to be less tethered to the prejudices and preoccupations of the past. If Snyder is serious about his aspirations, he needs to show the same leadership in the realm of same-sex marriage that he has begun to demonstrate in preparing Michigan for the health care needs of the 21st Century.

At a minimum, that would mean welcoming a referendum to repeal the mean-spirited constitutional ban Michigan voters adopted in 2004, a law that has secured the state’s reputation for hostility to gay people. Ideally, Snyder would not merely condone such a referendum, but explain the state’s economic self-interest in supporting it.

Sooner or later, the Supreme Court seems determined to put states on a level playing field where same-sex marriage is concerned. The real question is whether Michigan will embrace that future, or squander its energy to defend a discriminatory heritage that is ultimately doomed.